To me, Measure B is a choice between moving forward to develop a very good, sustainable (environmentally and economically) vision for Alameda Point. The question before us is, will we (the city) be able to see this vision come to fruition, and after much research and thought, I’ve decided that yes, it does.
I was glad to see someone else picked up on the interesting comment in SunCal’s response to the mayor last week. Michele at The Island not only noted that SunCal let drop that they have been negotiating an amended Development Agreement (DA) with the City, in response to some of their concerns, but also got Deputy City Manger Lisa Goldman (DCMLG) to confirm and to indicate that there are legal ways for the city to lock in changes pre-ballot.
Apparently, hedge funds are so toxic in Alameda that just throwing the word around is enough to qualify as in depth criticism of the Alameda Point Revitalization initiative. The question at Alameda Point is whether or not there will be…
Huffman and Elkind write: “So why is suburban sprawl the norm instead of housing close to shops, cafes and transit? The primary roadblock to this development is local land-use policies.”
Not an article can be written or cited about SunCal these days without what is becoming an almost ubiquitous comment posting from alamedapointinfo.org. The site is totally anti-SunCal, but I wanted to give the creators props as an example of moderated criticism that has so far been missing from the discussion of Alameda Point and island development.
Rin Kelly has done it. Written the perfect Rorshach test for Alameda Point. And I don’t mean that in a bad way. Apparently it doesn’t matter what her article says (and says well and fairly), you can see that it has proved you right all along. Which either says something about the readers or about the writing…and I’m going with readers on this one.
SunCal has submitted a Sports Complex Master Plan (see below) which lays out two scenarios for what the sports complex is being proposed to look like. There are some geotechnical issues that make building a pool difficult, and there for, it’s “potential.”
Almost from the get-go, some folks have tried to claim it was untrue (I guess that I was making it up, despite linking to his statement), and then again at the end of last week, the ever-correct Jane Smythe claimed that Matarrese had changed his mind because his statement was no longer on the web. At the same time, Don Roberts celebrated 20 years of talking about things without knowing what he’s talking about with special guest Pat Bail! Pat repeated the canard that Frank Matarrese had seen the light about Alameda Point because of “All” the opposition to the project (part of the “one-person, one-community-group” strategy to defeat the Point). The ironic proof? Matarrese’s website no longer presents his announcement of his support.
Earlier this week, the Sierra Club announced that they were signing onto the Alameda Point Vision which was a grassroots effort to develop a consensus vision for the direction of Alameda Point which began before SunCal was even in the picture.
Eighteen months ago and later, I suggested that the boosters of the pro-active Density Bonus law in Alameda didn’t really understand what they were pushing, and that it was being used for political, rather than practical purposes.